Re: hypotheses, science 'n' stuff

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/30/00 9:49:27 AM EST, chris.lavers@nottingham.ac.uk 
writes:

<< We always have to justify our
 belief in any particular epistemological handhold - even logic - with
 reference to something else (I believe in x because...). This means that in
 justifying our belief in any methodology, we must necessarily enter a state
 of infinite regress, constantly justifying our belief in one thing with
 reference to a more fundamental thing, or make a leap of faith (I believe
 in logic, so there!). A leap of faith is a leap of faith whether the
 landing area is logic, maths, or god, so all approaches to knowledge must
 be indefensible. WWBIII's reasoning also has the charming feature of
 refuting itself,  which just makes it all the more attractive, IMHO. >>

This is a wonderful summary of the very point I was trying to make in a few 
of my recent emails but obviously failed to do satisfactorily.